9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You seem to be missing the point; it's personal. I tend not to get upset the way you do, with invective and all. I just leave the scene if something irritates me too much. Such as the SLC film. As I have mentioned, feel free to excerpt any relevant part of its text. Or you could direct me to a particular minute or 2 in the film if you want to get a certain point across. But that's as far as it goes.


    I'd call it deception, and irritatingly poor deception at that.
     
  2. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,133
    How exactly can you pronounce it so without seeing it?

    Geoff
     
  3. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You guys tend not to read my direct links either; post excerpts, with the link below it if I want to read more.


    You mentioned this idea that no one saw a plane fly over a while back as well as some other criticisms on the pentagon issue. I quoted your post (it wasn't that long, I'm hoping fair use covers it) and one of the creators of www.thepentacon.com, Aldo Marquis responded in kind. But to specifically address the point you mentioned:
    ************************************************
    Wrong. Officer Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane banking away AFTER the explosion.

    This is the problem with the internet and fear. He has no idea what he is even talking about he is merely googling his way to reaffirm his denial. This is why we went out there. You can't simply take internet accounts as forensic proof of an impact of anything. People deduce things. They saw a plane fly by then see smoke or a fireball rise the area of the Pentagon, the deduce an impact. People see light poles lying on the ground after the fact, they say the plane hit some poles.

    You'll note he doesn't list any names.
    ************************************************

    If you want to see the rest of his response to you, feel free to take a look:
    http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=145313&t=732293
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2008
  4. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I saw the first few minutes of it. I pointed out how even those first few minutes were horribly deceptive in this forum and left it at that.
     
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,133
    What was? The title? First run of credits were deceptive then? "Ooh, I know that guy, and he never edited all that. Right, I'm done here then." What are you referring to?

    Geoff
     
  6. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Geoff, you do have a capability to make me laugh sometimes :). Because of this, I went digging for what I actually wrote way back at the end of August. At that point, shaman had been goading me about "Loose Change" and that I should see the screw(ed up) counter. Here's his goad and my response to him:

    *****************************
    4 minutes and change into it, I found it did no such thing. The first 4 minutes seem to be trying to establish that the director of loose change isn't connecting to 9/11 yet. Perhaps assuming he's preaching to people who want to believe him, he's countering the obvious comparisons to 9/11 that loose change is showing even as he's saying that there's no connections being drawn. A little after 4 minutes, the director of it seems to be either a very bad reader or deliberately lying when he says that a NORAD exercise had "nothing to do with planes being used as missiles", even as the article reads "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center". I decided I'd stop watching at that point.
    *****************************
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1988834&postcount=550
     
  7. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Are you suggesting that my logic is flawed? If so, where?


    Your previous point was "Ah the article which states that they have found the reason for the collapse". I show that the article's reason for its collapse has been discredited even by NIST, and now you insist that your point was that the crew couldn't figure out how temperatures could have gotten so hot so as to evaporate steel (about 5000 Fahrenheit, give or take). It's not that I mind your new point- it actually adds weight to the case that explosives were used, which can certainly reach such temperatures. It's just that I mind when you say that your point is one thing and then, when the evidence refutes your point, say that it's another.
     
  8. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Apparently it's you and many official story believers who are in fantasy land. You argue with me as if I'm the one who came up with the above story. In fact, it was the New York Daily News. The article's main point is its belief that a certain recovered steel girder was key to the cause of the WTC collapse. Its conclusion on that count may be questioned, but do you honestly believe that they'd lie about fire experts telling congress that "80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage"?

    I also note that they had something to say concerning the bolts of the WTC tower, suggesting that Geoff's recent claim that the bolts could have been the problem may well have been voiced previously after all. But the article discredits that theory, which is perhaps why I didn't see anything about it in my google search. Here's the relevant excerpt:
    *************************************
    Bolts stayed strong

    Thick bolts fastened to the column more than 30 years ago - securing it to a much thinner structural plate - were still in place. But the plate ripped apart.
    *************************************

    The rest of the article, including the section I quoted previously, can be seen here:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/04/16/2002-04-16_wtc_girder_is_key_to_collaps.html
     
  9. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The exception I had in mind is rather famous:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

    However, thanks to the help of an alternate theory website's admin from letsrollforums.com, I now have a video of the molten metal that had landed on the ground, as well as a firetruck passing through it. The results are drastic, as can be seen.
    ***************************************

    Here's the video with the flowing molten metal; Just found it. And I highly doubt this is a website of Christopher's as there is no mention of the concrete core, which seems to be his main area of interest. I have found many extremely excellent pieces of evidence and proof at this website, and I would recommend the website to people, with a weak disclaimer, about his humorous and comical approach to 911. Yet, this appears to be the websites main and only real drawback.

    The part of the video which shows this is toward the end of the video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0
    ***************************************
    http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=160519&postcount=2
     
  10. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It has been suggested that the fact that a lot of it was buried helped it to keep its heat. NIST hasn't speculated on how it might have preserved its extremely hot temperature, ofcourse, since it denies that anything other then molten aluminum could have been present, a theory that has clearly been discredited.


    There's plenty of evidence not only for explosives but for a controlled demolition. From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
    *******************************************
    [​IMG]

    ...the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)
    1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
    2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders
    3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
    4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
    5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
    6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
    7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
    8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
    9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
    10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
    11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure
    12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
    13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
    14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
    15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
    *******************************************
    http://www.ae911truth.org/
     
  11. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Access is not the same thing as being able to analyze it all. He had to go through 1,500 tons of steel a -day-. He makes it clear he was unhappy with the amount of time he was given to examine the evidence as well as some other things in a statement before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives:
    ********************************************
    I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:

    1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.
    2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

    Such data has already been made available to ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team. If those are also available to us, we will be able to proceed further with our research.

    ********************************************

    Later on, The Committee asks the following questions:
    ********************************************
    Has the confidential nature of the FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team investigation made it more difficult to gain access to materials that might be useful, such as private videotapes?
    ********************************************

    His response should be a concern to anyone interested in what happened on 9/11:
    ********************************************
    I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11 and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort.
    ********************************************
    http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/astaneh-wtc.htm
     
  12. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    What part of that convinces you? He is merely asserting, with a pathetic ramble involving cartoons, that a steel building cannot collapse. The vast majority of structural engineers disagree with him. The critical failure which caused the collapse have happened before.

    That couldn’t even be called a counter.




    It’s capabilities for demolishing a building have not been proven. What has been proven is how fire can weaken steel causing structures to collapse.



    Where did the oxygen all go?

    Have you seen the Kuwaiti oil fires? See how much smoke there is? Would you then say that they were oxygen starved?

    No there was clearly plenty of oxygen for the fires to weaken the steel.

    Once again, smaller building, not hit by planes, concrete core and the steel supports still collapsed…..

    What the hell is this guy talking about? Who says the so called squibs are touched up photos?

    http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

    The puffs of smoke were most likely caused by air being compressed downwards while a fairly large building was collapsing.



    Oh come on. There were explosives on every floor and no once noticed. … not likely.

    jref.

    So do demolition companies use it? They must considering how effective you say it is.

    lol Computers can do everything nowadays!!


    Kevin is wrong regarding the temperatures. The twisted steel, the bowing and the other examples conclusively prove that.

    The collapse of the building was most certainly a great concern to many, hence the list of peer reviewed articles by the structural engineers.



    Not everything was dust.

    The investigators had access to it at the salvage yard. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl had access to 40, 000 tons of steel. It was enough for him to determine what happened.


    There are conspiracy theorists everywhere. According to you however these people actually know about the supoer conspiracy and aren’t doing anything about it for fear of becoming unemployed. lol

    Then you have not really thought about how many people would be needed to execute this ridiculous ‘bombs in the building being hit by planes’ idea as well as the just as absurd ‘fly a plane near the pentagon and then fly it away and set bombs off making it look like a plane hit the pentagon while knocking over some light poles and throwing plane parts around, and then planting passenger remains in the wreckage (they were killed earlier) and then getting everyone to lie about what they saw’ plan.


    Scott 9/11 is your religion and no amount of debunking, reason or logic is going to change your conclusions which were reached without proper investigation. Instead of going to church you visit conspiracy sites and believe everything you are fed. Like religion, critical thinking is avoided and blind faith is embraced.

    That is what a 110 building looks like when it collapses from the top. It’s not pretty. A controlled demolition is completely different though and this has been pointed out to you multiple times. You will see what you want to see though.
     
  13. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The claim of molten metal has been made by many people:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

    As to the evaporated steel, I'm simply repeating what was reported in the New York Times:
    ***************************************
    Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks....

    A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

    ***************************************
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63
     
  14. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Ah so they actually claim to have a relevant witness now. When did he come out of the woodwork? Does Robert’s testimony match what he said in 2001?

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3940436&postcount=3

    Does his testimony even support what they are saying? Or are they just taking their own interpretation just as they did with all the people who claim to have seen it hit the pentagon?

    I have posted the numbers of people who actually saw the plane hitting poles and hitting the pentagon. There are many of them and the testimony was taken straight away. If you think that is somehow invalidated by one questionable interpretation taken years later then you are leaning on your faith again.

    :roflmao:

    I like in Melbourne Australia. What am I scared of?


    That’s right they went out there with a belief already confirmed before gathering any evidence. They went out with preconceived notion and tried to shoehorn the evidence to fit it. They interviewed people who claimed to see the plane hitting the pentagon and then they interpreted what they wanted from the angles they described and concluded that the plane didn’t hit the pentagon!!

    People saw the impact!

    People saw the plane hitting the light poles!!!


    These guys cling on to one witness account and discard the ones they don’t like. I’m now convinced that, of all the groups of conspiracy theorists, the pentacon guys are the most stupid.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,133
    And? The first four minutes of LC struck me as unreasonable too. Yet, I stuck with it.

    Geoff
     
  16. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    With something like the truth movement being a minority group with nothing established in mainstream science - How can they be taken seriously when even amongst them, there are vast condtradictions? The character of these people is in doubt....particularly when they try to establish something so remarkable that it would be the single most elaborate crime of all time. Look at what evidence they put fourth and ask yourself if these have a more mundane explanation; ask yourself if these people are motivated by truth; ask yourself if they are using their beliefs or fantasies to manipulate and deceive; ask yourself if these people are the least bit perturbed by the fact that all of mainstream science reject their claims.

    Can Scott can look himself in the mirror and say that he is being truthful to us or even himself? Or is there a rational voice in his head knowing that with each copy & paste from truther websites he does not know or care if it is true? He will jump at the chance to say "no I genuinely believe what I'm telling you", at which point I would have to move from disgust to pity.

    The sad difference between religious fundamentalists and truthers is that at least the religious have nothing to go on and just assert that they are right and you are wrong. With truthers, they can misrepresent actual physical happenings and smugly content that they are right and you are wrong based on their deceitful, ignorant and stupid interpretations of the physical world.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2008
  17. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,942
    my extra large, mutant sized penis is unreasonable. I stick with it all the time.
     
  18. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Or atleast that's what you believe.


    I'd like to see you try, laugh :p. In any case, I didn't say it; Paul Isaac did:
    ****************************************
    Also, Isaac directly addressed the gag order placed on firemen and police officers in Szymanski’s article:

    “It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11.

    ****************************************
    http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html

    Despite this gag order, however, some firemen -did- speak. Paul Isaac is the most obvious example, but there were others, as is clear from the link I provided you last time:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

    As a matter of fact, some of them wanted to testify to the 'independent' 9/11 commission, but they were excluded from doing so:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_firefighters.html


    Perhaps not evidence admissible in a court of law, as I have seen no evidence that he himself heard the explosions in the building. But as far as I know, he has never stated otherwise. What he -has- stated is that -other- firefighters have heard explosions and testimony of those other firefighters is in the links I have provided.

    Just as there is disagreements within a political party, there is also dissent within the ranks of the alternate story believers. If you look at the video closely, you will see that Paul Isaac specifically stated that he didn't necessarily disagree with what many 9/11 alternate story believers believed, but rather with the way they expressed it that day (9/11). Or, to put it in his own words, it was the 'format' or the 'presentation' that he didn't like. Why he didn't like it, I didn't quite understand; it seems he was saying that he simply wanted to mourn without having to think of who did it. Perhaps at this point in time, he was not yet in the alternate story movement. Whatever the case, it's clear that he's in it now; differences can occur within a group of people but one thing that he and many alternate story believers concur on is that the building was brought down by explosions.
     
  19. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    The post you link to is a perfect example of JREF deceit.
    the JREF poster claims that the original recording does not support a pentagon flyover.
    he even provides a link to the original recording
    http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.afc/afc2001015.sr348a01

    and yet the recording DOES support a flyover.
    At 1:20 he clearly describes seeing another airliner fly over the pentagon AFTER an explosion at the pentagon. In a follow up interview by CIT he even clarifies stating the plane was a silver commercial airliner (clearly an AA airliner).

    The point of the JREF post is to fool those who don't actually listen to the recording. I'm reminded of the line in star wars "these aren't the droids you're looking for"
     
  20. scott3x Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    What draws you to the conclusion that it's unlikely for an artist to collect WTC dust for sentimental reasons?



    The lack of motive, for one. The lack of know how, for another. On the issue of motive: how do you know the NIST individuals in charge of the investigation purposely didn't look for nano thermite because they -knew- that they'd find it? They, after all, are experts on nano thermite, and yet they failed to test for it and when pressed gave handily debunked reasons as to why they didn't do so.


    I've already told you that NIST doesn't even want to talk to Steven Jones. Also, as far as I know, they still have their own samples they could test. And yet they don't.


    I already provided you with evidence that she met him in 2005.

    This implies a few things:
    1- You actually know how to concoct nanothermite on your own and create these iron rich spherules.

    2- You actually have a motivation for doing so.

    What's more, she is not the only person who found iron rich spherules, as I have already mentioned.


    Look, it's one thing to misinterpret data (Jesus in the Americas sounds a bit suspicious to me too). As you may know, Steven Jones is a mormon and mormons believe that Jesus did, in fact, come to America. I have found the religious beliefs, on the whole, have a whole lot of irrational beliefs. But religious beliefs and data on whether or not Jesus came to america is one thing. A thermate fingerprint is quite another.


    Jones isn't withholding any of his evidence. The same isn't true in the case of the government.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page